Thursday, 28 November 2013

Many thanks to the organisations
who sent their feedback to us on the draft proposed certification model.Nearly 50 organisations, individuals, networks and NGO consortia
have submitted written comments on the draft model, providing valuable feedback
and suggestions on how to improve it.We
especially appreciate the efforts made by membership organisations to compile
inputs from their members.

We are in the process of consolidating
the inputs and incorporating the most relevant into a revised draft model,
bearing in mind that some of the issues raised are beyond the scope of the
project.We will use the revised draft
as the basis for more focused field consultations and piloting to test the
validity of our assumptions and proposals.

In the meantime, we would like share
the top 10 questions raised by many
of you and clarify some issues that were not clear in the initial draft proposal.

1. What is the purpose of certification?

In the first draft of the model,
the purpose of certification was not clear to many of you.Some expressed concern that this could be
used by states and donors for control and compliance purposes, or could be
misused to limit access to populations in a crisis or to funding. These are
certainly risks that we have identified and that will need to be mitigated as
part of any successful certification scheme.

From our perspective a relevant
and meaningful certification model is one that promotes
learning, quality, effectiveness and
accountability of humanitarian organisations. It would include criteria to
assess, measure, report and verify an organisation’s capacity, performance and
accountability. But to be clear, certification of an organisation should not be
seen as the end goal, but rather as a way for an organisation to demonstrate
its commitment to humanitarian principles, quality and accountability to crisis affected
people.

2.Is
this a new model? It looks very similar to existing models…

The draft proposed model is an
attempt to stimulate debate on what a feasible, sustainable certification model
might look like and how to achieve it. Some
have asked what is different in this model from the model used by HAP (or other
models). We are working closely with HAP to incorporate their learning and
experiences into the project, and to see if we can improve on HAP’s approach. We
also want to explore other approaches to verification and certification,
including national level certification processes, and ensure that these are
incorporated into our thinking.

In particular, we are looking at
a model that reinforces commitments to humanitarian principles, quality and
accountability, as well as one that would scale up the level of participation by
humanitarian organisations, and be more financially sustainable. We will try to
reflect more clearly what we think is unique about this approach in the revised
model.

3.How
does this link to the Core Humanitarian Standard?

Many of you have asked how the
criteria for certification in this model would link to the Core Humanitarian
Standard (CHS).Because a draft of the standard
was not yet ready at the time we prepared the draft model, we included some
examples of criteria that could be used to assess an organisation.Our idea was to use these examples to
stimulate debate, and then to share the feedback we received with the CHS
process.

From the feedback received, the
majority of you seem to expect that the Core Humanitarian Standard should be
the foundation of any proposed model.Our
research and consultations so far do indicate that the prerequisite for any
successful certification model is a widely agreed set of standards or criteria
to assess and organisation against. This is why the project is committed to support
the development of a core standard, which could then be integrated into the
certification model.

We think that the project can
support the CHS process in two ways: first, by using the field consultation and
piloting process as a means to get early feedback from stakeholders on the
usefulness, relevance and validity of the draft core standard, second, the
project can contribute suggestions on ways to measure, verify and report on how
the core standard is used.

4. Why
is the draft model limited to assessing the principles of humanity and
impartiality?

In the draft model, we
unintentionally gave the impression that the principles of neutrality and
independence were not as important as humanity and impartiality, and therefore
did not need to be mentioned in the model. This was a mistake on our part. We
will make sure that the new model clearly reaffirms the importance of all four
principles as the foundation for humanitarian action.

In the draft we focused only on
humanity and impartiality, primarily because these principles can be “measured”
in operational terms, such as the use of an objective needs assessment to
determine programming priorities. In contrast, an organisation’s independence
and neutrality are based on the perceptions of different stakeholders, which
may be influenced by the crisis context and other factors beyond the control of
the organisation, which make it more difficult to fairly and objectively assess
an organisation.

5. Why is the draft model limited to
humanitarian work of NGOs?

Many of you have asked why the
model is limited to the humanitarian work of NGOS, and suggested it should also
include their development work.We also
received questions about why the UN system and other actors (like the private
sector or military) were not included.

We designed the project to focus
on NGO’s humanitarian work, as this is where we felt we might be able to add
the most value in terms of understanding the potential role of certification in
efforts to improve the quality, effectiveness and accountability of
humanitarian actions. We understand that it is often difficult for
organisations to separate their humanitarian work from other work, particularly
in relation to resilience and preparedness; nevertheless, we had to set a frame
to narrow the focus of our work. This does not pre-empt looking into how certification
could also apply to NGOs’ developmental work in the future, if a model is considered
relevant and feasible. It also does not
preclude the model, if implemented, fromevolving over time to include other types of organisations that commit
to humanitarian principles and core standards.

6. Where are the voices and perspectives of
affected populations in the draft model?

Many of the comments received
welcomed the model’s focus on field-based verification of practices, and the
intention of integrating the voices of affected populations into the assessment
process. However, most felt that the
process described was too bureaucratic, headquarters-focused and was not
explicit enough on the role of affected populations in any field-based assessment
or verification. Several provided some very useful suggestions on how to do
this, which we are reviewing carefully.

We will
be looking at how best to utilise the increasing number of tools and approaches
to give affected populations a means to communicate their needs, priorities and
expectations about aid and aid providers and plan on explore this during the
field consultation and pilot testing part of the project.

7. Could other approaches to verification and
certification be compatible with the draft model?

Several organisations asked how
this draft model would link to their own internal quality assurance processes,
or external processes that they participate in, such as HAP, national level certification
processes, or donor partner pre-qualification procedures.

In the draft model, we highlight
that integration, alignment and compatibility with existing systems is an
important factor for the success of any certification model.We know that many organisations have made
considerable efforts to build their capacity and systems to improve the quality
and accountability of their work, and it is important to recognise these
efforts, without adding additional burdens or requirements on them. Other
organisations might not have the resources to invest in these kinds of systems,
but still do good quality, accountable, and effective programmes. This also
needs to be acknowledged in any proposed model.We will provide more details in
the next version of the model on how a verification process or certification can
build on existing processes.

8. Are the proposed levels too complicated?
Could they act as a barrier to participation?

While many organisations felt the
proposed levels of certification could be helpful, several organisations were
concerned that donors might misuse the levels to channel funding only to the
top-rated organisations. Some suggested that the levels would work better as an
internal tool to help organisations assess their current capacity and
performance and identify areas for improvements. Others suggested that the
proposed four levels are too complicated, and a simplified version would be
easy for the public to understand.

We
agree, and in the next version, we will propose a clearer, simplified version
of the levels. We hope to show
how an assessment process could help organisations identify their strengths and
areas for improvement, while communicating to external audiences that an
organisation meets minimum certification requirements.

9. Why
is the proposed governance structure so complex? Isn’t the aim to simplify?

Several organisations raised concerns
that the proposed governance and management structure is too complicated, bureaucratic,
and costly.Others asked how the model
could be sustainable when there are many other different initiatives with their
own governance and management structures, leading to duplication of costs and
functions.

We included the proposed
governance and management structure as a way to generate ideas on how to
address the complicated issue of making sure any governance model is open and
representative of the many different stakeholders in the system – and able to
incorporate new actors in the future. We also wanted to generate feedback on
what we see as an important issue for the sector to address: how to promote and
link a more coherent approach to setting standards for humanitarian action to more
consistent and rigorous approaches to monitoring, verification and reporting on
how standards are used.

10. How can the model be tested when there is
still no consensus on the criteria for assessment?

Many of you questioned the logic
of piloting the model when there is still no agreement on any Core Humanitarian
Standard and many unanswered questions about the feasibility of certification. For many organisations, piloting implies a full-scale
implementation of a complete model in a field environment. However, for the
project, our concept of piloting is an opportunity to consult directly with
stakeholders in the field around some of the key assumptions and proposals in
the model, and assess how it would work before going further with developing a
complete model.

The pilots will give us an
opportunity to get more field perspectives on the model, and will give a
clearer idea on what would make certification feasible and relevant for organisations.
The main aims of the field pilots would be to: test and validate the assessment
criteria from the perspective of the participating organisation; consult with
the organisation and other stakeholders (including affected populations) on how
they see the added value (or not) of certification; identifying how this
proposed process would integrate with internal and external processes; and
understanding the costs and resource implications of the model. All this will
help provide a clearer understanding of how certification can contribute (or
not) to improved quality, accountability and effectiveness of aid efforts.

Friday, 22 November 2013

Over the last few months, we have come to
realise that there are still many questions and misunderstandings about what
the Certification Project set out to try and achieve. Below, we aim to clarify the
project objectives and scope. Please get in touch with us if you still have unanswered
questions.

Objectives

1. Explore the relevance and
feasibility of a widely-endorsed certification system for humanitarian
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) aimed at improving the quality,
effectiveness and accountability of humanitarian action

2. Identify the conditions
that would make certification sustainable and successful

3. Gain recognition by
donors, governments and UN agencies, and alignment of their different
requirements to any proposed model

Expected outcomes

1. Proposal for a common verification
framework to report on how principles, results and accountability are being
applied by organisations

2. Proposal for an effective
and appropriate certification model which promotes learning, quality assurance
and accountability of humanitarian organisations, including criteria to assess
and measure capacity, performance and accountability

3. If such a model is not
deemed feasible, clear rationale and articulation of why certification is not
recommended.

Scope

The project will make specific proposals on assessment
criteria around an organisation’s capacity, performance and accountability; on
a verification and reporting framework; and a on certification
model.

This project intends to benefit all interested
humanitarian NGOs. Any proposals or recommendations from this project will be
based on the outcomes of research, consultation, pilot testing and as wide a
consensus as possible.

Outcomes will attempt to determine what approaches might best serve
affected populations today and in the future; they are not driven by or
determined by SCHR members or donors.

The project is led by a Steering Group and
supported by a Technical Advisory Group with representatives from the
humanitarian sector.

SCHR position and role

SCHR collective members’ position is that the
project is exploring the role of certification in efforts to promote more
principled, effective and accountable humanitarian action. SCHR is sponsoring
the project because it believes a sustainable certification model could benefit
affected populations and the humanitarian sector. SCHR will use its
network to build support for project outcomes, particularly in promoting
recognition and support from governments and donors

Consultation
process

Wide consultations are being conducted to include views and perspectives
of national and international NGOs donors, crisis-affected governments, UN
agencies and affected populations on what they expect from humanitarian
organisations.

The consultation process is on-going, with opportunities to input at
various stages of the project research and on the project findings and
recommendations

Field pilot testing and validation is an important component of the project,
as it will allow us to see how the model integrates with existing approaches,
identify gaps, and gain perspectives from affected communities and stakeholders
at the programme level on the value of the approach.

Relationship with other initiatives

The project is working closely with HAP, ICVA,
VOICE, Interaction and other key stakeholders to ensure compatibility and
harmonisation of any proposed model with existing standards, quality assurance
and certification mechanisms.

An essential component of the project is to
review and consolidate learning from other approaches to define the most
effective and appropriate way of achieving widespread recognition and use of
agreed standards and verification mechanisms.

Core standards and certification

The project worked closely with the Joint
Standards Initiative (JSI) and is contributing to the Core Humanitarian
Standard process to ensure that any verification or certification assessment
criteria are based on the core standard. The certification project is
contributing to the development of the Core Humanitarian Standard through
its field pilot testing of the model by assessing and reporting back on the relevance and
verifiability of some of the components of the draft version of the core
standard.

About SCHR

The SCHR is a voluntary alliance of nine of the world’s leading humanitarian organisations. They share an aim to improve the quality, effectiveness, accountability and impact of aid efforts for people affected by crisis.